QC relies on the observed output being statistically significant. This rebuttal is pointing out that Project Eleven only ran the algorithm once. At this point, there is no proof the IBM QC platform is generating anything statistically significant, especially more significant than the performance of feeding it /dev/urandom.
Basically, there is no proof this was real quantum computing instead of random noise picked up by the hardware inside the QC.
Now to show that the QC is doing anything against this rebuttal, they have it run it a significant number of times and show that it breaks the key a larger amount of times than feeding it a uniform distributed random noise source like /dev/urandom.
Comments
You miss the point of this rebuttal.
QC relies on the observed output being statistically significant. This rebuttal is pointing out that Project Eleven only ran the algorithm once. At this point, there is no proof the IBM QC platform is generating anything statistically significant, especially more significant than the performance of feeding it /dev/urandom.
Basically, there is no proof this was real quantum computing instead of random noise picked up by the hardware inside the QC.
Now to show that the QC is doing anything against this rebuttal, they have it run it a significant number of times and show that it breaks the key a larger amount of times than feeding it a uniform distributed random noise source like /dev/urandom.